Given that the Governor is a conservative Republican, given that the Legislature is Republican, given that the Legislature often passes ALEC legislation without changing a word, and given that the state has a TFA Commissioner of Education, it seems likely that Tennessee will endorse vouchers for low-income students. In time, as we saw in Wisconsin, the income limits will be lifted.

There is only one important fact missing from the discussion of vouchers in this article: Vouchers have no record of improving test scores wherever they have been tried. Not in Milwaukee, not in the District of Columbia, and not in Cleveland.

It is simply choice for the sake of choice, choice for the sake of privatization.

Like this:

Related

5 CommentsComments are closed.

I think we need to be more blunt about the goals of the “privateers”: The seeking of profits from public tax flows. Given all of the stories covered in this blog, the “pattern in the rug” is clear–The private sector, including such wealthy players as Gates, Bush, Murdoch, etc., has decided to “extract” profits from the public by taking over public education. They see this “market”, really a golden-egg-laying goose, as a target of opportunity or a gold mine waiting to be exploited. They believe they can get what they want–big profits–by corrupting state politicians and officials and stampeding the public with horror stories of failing schools and bad teachers.

Why do I care about this distinction? Because when we simply decry “privatization”, we invite the response that we are only upset about a philosophy, and, shouldn’t we give this a try? The public has becomes so inured to the free market myth that many people still don’t comprehend the real game here. So, we have to be more explicit that this movement is about taking public money for personal gain: Privatization does nothing to help students, it exploits them and the public by extracting our taxes for minimal return.

I live in Nashville, and I can tell you that using vouchers would barely offset a fraction of the costs of private school tuition here. It certainly would not give students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds increased access to private schools.

I often hear people conflate vouchers and Pell Grants as well.

I’m single, have no children, and I own a home. I do not mind paying for public education because I benefit from living in an educated society regardless of whether I have children in the schools or not.

But if people here get vouchers to send their children to private schools, then I want a “voucher” for the taxes I pay when I have no children in the schools at all (sarcasm intended).